Third Class Medical Exemption Request - Joint filing by EAA and AOPA

[Bill Barker]

First, let me add my "atta boy" for submitting this proposal.
It's ironic that the LSA community is being used as an example of the idea working. LSA's will be the most hurt by the FAA accepting this change. I think that LSA are great planes, but much of the demand has been driven by private pilots stepping back away from their Part 23 aircraft to avoid the hassles of a physical. This will lower prices for LSA and raise sagging prices for Part 23 aircraft.
Still it's the right thing to do.

[Joe LaMantia]

Nice discussion guys!

I'll add my 2 cents, there is a big difference between a drivers license and a PPL. The drivers license is issued at the state level by your local DMV, while not a popular place to spend a morning or afternoon they don't get the same level of press attention that the Fed gets. The only exception I can think of related to the drivers license is the Commercial license issued by the States but regulated by the Fed. The world of aviation evolved with a big spotlight that really sold a lot of newspapers back in the 20's, the Federal politicians created the regulations to take the heat off of them, there is a lot of CYA. So we are stuck with making small steps to keep them feeling comfortable. I can still remember my Dad commenting when things went wrong, "don't make Federal Case out of it'!

Joe

[EDGEFLY]

Date along with your forum ID if you wish..........e.g. EDGEFLY 3/30/12 0930 EDT Positive comment

[jam0552@msn.com]

I just submitted a comment online regarding the EAA/AOPA Exemption request. You can, too. Use http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2012-0350-0001 The aviation community should inundate the FAA with positive comments. Its the best way we can let our voices be heard.
-Joel Marketello

[jam0552@msn.com]

I just went to the site in the previous post and noticed the comments totaled 856. We are going to need more comments than this if the exemption is going to pass. If you haven't yet responded with a comment, please do so. It's really very easy. And you can review your comment or any other online.
-Joel Marketello

[steveinindy]

Sorry for responding to an old comment but I somehow overlooked it.

What difference does it make if the pilot is incapacitated in a plane that flies at 100 vs 200 mph? The outcome is the same.

Point taken but I will point out that many incapacitation events are not the "pilot grabs his chest and does his best Red Foxx impression" sort of instantaneous death resulting in a power dive to the ground sort of occurrence. Many of them are slight (pilot has a coronary but is still able to maintain control) or the pilot flops back in the seat and a passenger winds up at the controls. While such scenarios are rare, it would conceivably be easier for the pilot or non-pilot passenger to handle a slower and lighter aircraft. That's not a valid reason to restrict the operation though in my book.

The reason for the restriction in my opinion (and shared by many in the aviation safety community) was that the LSA approach and this option are simply ways to test the safety and feasibility of self-certification as an alternative to the onerous medical certification process we now face while not endangering any more lives or property than absolutely necessary.

That said, I still point out that I won't see much of a point (at least from where I stand) for self-certification until it is applied to the operation of larger aircraft under something other than VFR conditions.

[jam0552@msn.com]

So, "steveinindy," are you for the exemption or against it? Reading your past post I cannot determine where you stand.
-JAM

[steveinindy]

I'm for doing away with the archaic medical certification system as it currently stands. I believe that, for the most part, we can do a decent job of regulating ourselves. The point about it not making much of a difference to me as the proposal currently stands is simply because I don't regularly fly the sorts of aircraft that this proposal would involve.

[jam0552@msn.com]

Excellent, my sentiments, exactly! Now if we can just get like-minded individuals to express their opinions to the FAA, maybe we can bring some degree of rationality to medical certification.
-JAM

[EDGEFLY]

In the early going on this thread, I encouraged "rational support" by the membership of the proposal and, i'll stand by that recommendation today. But, an article on the EAA home page today says there are some 856 comments on the docket filed to this date. First of all, even if these are all supportive, it doesn't seem very significant to me considering that the total membership of the two sponsoring organizations is something like 600,000 +. Next,there are some number of "anonymous" comment submissions which are likely to be thrown out. Also, there are sure to be some of the comments which are negative. Then again, these comments left are potentially traceable to the people who submitted them. At least, each submitter was supposed to respond with his or her name or title. I took a little time to sort through the identity info and surprise, surprise, none of them seem to correlate with the leaders of the sponsoring organizations, the aviation writers for either SPORT AVIATION nor AOPA PILOT nor even the moderators of this forum !!!!! Now to be sure, this is something like your right to vote in political elections. It is a RIGHT, not a personal RESPONSIBILITY. It does, however, make me wonder if the FAA won't take note of this while evaluating the quality and relevance of comments to the docket. To be sure, I didn't make an exhaustive analysis of the comments data and, if some of the "missing commenters" actually did offer some opinion, I apologize for misrepresenting their actions.Secondly, I do not claim to be polls analyst or whatever it takes to be an expert in this field but it certainly appears to me that the pilot community is missing an opportunity to support a proposal which could only benefit all of us.EDGEFLY